And under Bush, 'fish have human rights' -----Original Message----- From: profox-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2012 6:14 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] Why the Bammer is so impossible to understand
When he's speaking without the teleprompter suddenly we have 57 states. ________________________________ From: Nicholas Geti <ng...@optonline.net> To: ProFox Email List <profox@leafe.com> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Why the Bammer is so impossible to understand Typical of the liberals. As I said many times, as soon as one comments about a liberal, they all counterattack with "you conservatives did this and that." without actually defending their cause. Instead of making the case that Obama can be understood they immediately said how bad Bush was at speaking. Obama is the great orator, ha! He needs the teleprompter to carry on through his entire speech. ----- Original Message ----- From: "geoff" <data...@adam.com.au> To: "'ProFox Email List'" <profox@leafe.com> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 12:45 AM Subject: RE: [OT] Why the Bammer is so impossible to understand > while avoiding the politics since to be honest, i dont care that much, > Bush > was ALWAYS inarticulate and Obama is in fact a great orator. saying > something of substance is always a different manner. but i had a desk > calendar full of Bushisms. politics aside, he was a terrible, truly awful > public speaker. > > -----Original Message----- > From: profox-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf > Of Pete Theisen > Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2012 10:39 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] Why the Bammer is so impossible to understand > > geoff wrote: >> I had to say it before someone else does. You criticise Obama as being >> impossible to understand while being one-time supporters of GWB who >> has literally a desk-calendar full of mangled statements like 'fish >> have human rights too'? there has rarely been a less articulate >> president - if indeed ever. > > Hi Geoff, > > As a matter of fact, we still support Bush. Much rather have Bush be an > unofficial ambassador than, say, Carter - yet Carter is the one who usurps > the role. > > Bush was at times inarticulate, Bammer is something else. Inexplicable, I > think - or worse, suspect. > > Is the movie already out in Oz? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: profox-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On >> Behalf Of Pete Theisen >> Sent: Saturday, 17 March 2012 2:03 AM >> To: ProFox Email List >> Subject: [OT] Why the Bammer is so impossible to understand >> >> Hi Everybody, >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6QOscKvUjU >> >> Coming to a theater soon - an expansion of this thesis. > > > -- > Regards, > > Pete > http://pete-theisen.com/ [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/001f01cd0618$87781cb0$96685610$@com.au ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
